Seep Tents Masters Project

1
Seep Tents Masters Project

• External Review

2
Group Members

• Group Project ManagerErin Mayberry
• Secretary/RecorderWendy Stanford
• TreasurerFarah Shamszadeh
• Data ManagerAli Ger
• Client ContactMisty Gonzales

3
Advisors

• Faculty Advisors
• Christopher Costello
• Natalie Mahowald
• Project Advisor
• Mel Willis

4
Background

• Natural gas and oil seep from the ocean floor in
  the Santa Barbara Channel
• In 1982, ARCO installed 2 concrete and steel
  pyramids to capture the gas
• These are the only tents in the world
• The tents are currently operated by Venoco, Inc.

5
Background

• Gas emitted is mostly methane
• The seeps are considered a natural source of air
  pollution in the county
• The Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control
  District is exploring additional seep tents as a
  method to reduce methane emissions

6
Problem Statement

• Is it environmentally advantageous to install
  additional seep tents to capture naturally
  released hydrocarbons?
• Further, is it economically and legally feasible
  to install additional seep tents?

7
Critical Assumptions study area
Maps courtesy of the UCSB Hydrocarbon Seeps
Project http//seeps.geol.ucsb.edu/
Area studied by the UCSB Hydrocarbon Seeps
Research Group
8
Critical Assumptions study area

• Water quality impact area
• Same area as geologic study
• Air quality and health impact area
• Santa Barbara County, CA
• Both will have specific section in final document
  on potential impacts outside of study area

9
Critical Assumptions study area

• Terrestrial impact area
• Scenario 1 Assume project will use Venocos
  existing facilities
• Assessment of impact of increased production
  levels at Venoco
• Scenario 2 Engineering data from APCD include
  separate processing or co-generation facilities
• Evaluate impacts in addition to Scenario 1

10
Critical Assumptions geology

• UCSB Hydrocarbon Seeps Project
• Reservoir (?)
• Flux (?)
• Natural variation (?)
• Final analysis will include low, medium, and high
  estimates

11
Critical Assumptions seep tents

• Size, number, materials and structure, placement
• Scenario 1 Determined by the results of the A.D.
  Little engineering estimate ordered by the APCD
• Scenario 2 These data are not available. We
  assume that the project will duplicate the 1982
  ARCO project. Design will be updated if possible.

12
Critical Assumptions use of the gas

• Who will use the captured gas?
• Scenario 1 Gas will be sold openly on the market
• Scenario 2 Venoco will contract to sell the gas
  exclusively to UCSB

13
Critical Assumptions use of the gas

• How will the captured gas be used?
• Scenario 1 Gas is sold on the market, used for
  either heat or electricity
• Scenario 2 Gas is sold to UCSB
• To eliminate the need for an additional
  electricity generation facility, we assume the
  gas will be used for heating only
• Scenario 3 Gas is sold to UCSB
• Engineering report includes co-generation
  facility, gas used for heating and electricity

14
Critical Assumptions use of the gas

• How will the gas be processed?
• Assume it is not feasible to construct a new
  facility to process the gas
• Assume the gas will be cleaned using the
  processing facilities available at Venoco, Inc.s
  Ellwood Onshore Facility

15
Critical Assumptions use of the gas

• Which pipelines will be used?
• Existing pipelines from ARCO tents will be used
• New tents will tap into the existing pipelines
• (?) Can existing pipelines accept the increased
  capacity of the new tents? If not, will
  pipelines need to be built?

16
Critical Assumptions use of the gas

• How will the gas be transported to the user?
• Gas will be transported via existing
  infrastructure

17
Critical Assumptions ownership

• Who legally owns the captured gas?
• The gas is not fugitive gas
• Owned by lessee

18
Critical Assumptions planning period

• When would the tents be implemented?
• How long would it take to finance, get permits
  for, engineer, build and implement the tents?
• Plan to get data from engineering study or
  original ARCO seep tents Environmental Impact
  Statement

19
Critical Assumptions planning period

• What is the useful life of the seep tents?
• What is the life of the seeps?
• Data from UCSB Hydrocarbon Seeps research group
• What is the life of the tents?
• Data from engineering study or original ARCO EIS

20
Areas of Research

• Four areas of research
• Economic feasibility study (Wendy)
• Legal feasibility study (Farah)
• Water quality ecologic impact study (Ali)
• Air quality climate impact study (Misty)

21
Research II economic feasibility

• Calculate the Net Present Value of future gas
  sales for the next 20 years
• Discover the processing sequence of the gas
• Determine at what point gas is sold
• Discover who has been gaining revenue from gas
  sales
• Construct time series of past revenues
• Determine the potential amount of gas captured by
  seep tents
• Calculate potential future sales revenues of gas
  for the next 20 years
• Perform Monte Carlo Sensitivity Analysis

22
Research II economic feasibility

• Technology Costs
• Determine what the existing infrastructure is
  that supports the collection and processing of
  seep gases
• Determine whether new tents will tie into
  existing infrastructure or will require
  additional supporting construction
• Estimate engineering costs of construction of
  seep tents
• Estimate fixed costs of installation of seep
  tents
• Discover past maintenance costs of seep tents and
  infrastructure
• Estimate future costs of maintenance of seep
  tents
• Estimate future costs of potential new
  infrastructure

23
Research II economic feasibility

• Legal and Permitting Costs
• Determine permitting fees
• Estimate potential fines
• Determine the value of potential emissions
  reduction credits

24
Research III legal feasibility

• Objective recommendations for the project to be
  consistent with applicable regulations
• In the lifetime of the project there will be 4
  phases
• Phase 1 Construction
• Phase 2 Operation
• Phase 3 Maintenance
• Phase 4 Abandonment

25
Research III legal feasibility

• Data collection
• What are the federal, state and local agencies
  that regulate each phase of the project?
• Source Santa Barbara County Clerks Office
• For each agency, what are the applicable policies
  and regulations?
• Source Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe/ Legal
  Research Database

26
Research III legal feasibility

• Analysis
• Is each phase of the project consistent with
  these policies and regulations?
• If inconsistent, what are the policy and
  regulatory constraints on
• 1. The site
• 2. The design
• 3. The operation

27
Research IV marine impacts

• Goal To develop a qualitative model that will
  
• predict the water quality and related marine
  ecology impacts of possible seep tent
  installation
• Objectives
• Determine the fate and transport of the seep
  hydrocarbons
• Determine present state of the seep ecology
• Gather data about the measured impacts of the
  ARCO tents
• Use the information above as inputs to predict
  likely impacts of new seep tent installations
  using the selected scenario

28
Research IV marine impacts

• Ecology and environmental nature of the seeps
• What are the surface, long shore and subsurface
  currents?
• How do these currents affect the fate and
  transport of the seep hydrocarbons in the water
  column?
• How do the hydrocarbons biodegrade?
• What is the seep ecology?
• What is the species composition and abundance
• compared to non-seep sites?

29
Research IV marine impacts

• Impacts of seep tents on the marine ecology and
  water quality
• Impacts of the ARCO tents?
• Most likely ways that the seeps tents alter
  benthic ecology?
• Links between the benthos and pelagic ecology?
• What are the likely water quality impacts of
  additional seep tents?
• Will there be a detectable impact of the tents on
  selected hydrocarbons concentrations?
• How much will the tents reduce the total seep gas
  emissions into the atmosphere?

30
Research V air quality climate

• Quantify total volume of VOCs and compare them to
  other natural sources by obtaining information
  from the SBCAPCD and UCSB
• What types of gas are released?
• What is the area of the seepage at the surface?
• What is the flux of gas from the surface?
• What are other natural sources of VOCs?
• What is the total quantity of other natural
  sources?

31
Research V air quality climate

• Review ozone concentrations in the county
• What are the processes of ozone production?
• What are typical ozone concentrations in SB
  throughout the seasons?
• What environmental factors contribute to ozone
  production?

32
Research V air quality climate

• Determine the overall contribution of methane to
  global greenhouse gases emitted from the seeps
  using data from UCSB Geology Department
• How much methane is emitted from the surface?
• What is the global balance for methane?
• Global Warming Potential
• IPCC (impact on radiation)

33
Research V air quality climate

• Compare current ozone levels with estimated new
  levels from reduced geogenic emissions due to
  capture by the seep tents
• Urban Airshed Model (from EPA)
• Install model
• Run model
• Confirm that model accounts for mobile sources

34
Research V air quality climate

• Calculate potential impacts of VOC reductions due
  to tenting of geogenic sources
• How much will VOCs be reduced by tenting?
• How will this effect ozone production?
• How will this effect county ozone levels?

35
Research V air quality climate

• Estimate amount of air toxics released from the
  seeps
• What is the flux of toluene and benzene?
• What are the health risks associated with these
  air toxics?
• What are the relative sources of these toxics in
  the county emissions inventory?
• Determine ARCO's calculations of emissions from
  the seeps

36
Final Project Report

• We will deliver a final document detailing our
  findings by April, 2002
• The report could be used for public review of the
  possible seeps tents development project

37

• Questions?
• Thank you for your feedback